View a Hearing

Supreme Court

Docket: SC-34
Status: Ruled on by a Court

shorkmode

Attorney: Not Assigned

vs.

HRHCollection

Attorney: Not Assigned

Overview
  • Type of Hearing: Criminal
  • Submitted: 1 week ago (23/Apr/2026 11:00:16 AM UTC)
  • Hearing Location: Closed Case (After SC-33)
  • Hearing Verdict:
  • Date Scheduled: 23/Apr/2026
  • Time Scheduled: 14:04 PM UTC
Information
The Department of Justice is suing the Habbo User “HRH-Collection” on behalf of the Accused which are as follows: the Habbo User “HRH-Collection” and the Habbo User “Mayuki”
The Department of Justice is submitting this case on behalf of the Department of Defense to impose a Ban on Sight (BoS) order against the accused organisations and its members, on the grounds of Terroristic Conduct as outlined by Part 2, Section 1, Subsection 2 of the Defence Act 2025
The Department of Defense alleges that the accused has openly and publicly doxed a member of the White House and its greater community within our Headquarters
The Department of Defense states that this pattern of behavior exhibited by the Accused demonstrates premeditation and hostility towards our members, thereby justifying the highest level of enforcement available under White House law.

Location: » The White House » Pays 5c Hourly » JOBS
Date: April 12th 2026 at 19:18 GMT +1
Court Opinion

Written by Seas. on 23/Mar/2026 04:50:00 PM UTC

The application for a Ban on Sight placement against HRHCollection and Mayuki is hereby granted.

The Court is unanimous in their decision, deeming the above user(s) a threat to our community. The evidence presented meets the definition of Terrorism as defined by Part 2, Section 1, Subsection 2 of the Defense Act 2025. It is the Court’s opinion that the behaviour demonstrated by these users has no place within our community, nor the platform as a whole.

Both users contributed equally to the above action. Publishing someone's full name online without their consent is to be considered doxing, particularly when this is done to reveal the identity of a previously anonymous or pseudonymous person with the intention of causing harm, harassment, or distress. The intention of the parties here is evident.

We find this behaviour to be particularly egregious, stripping away the privacy of someone by publicly sharing their private information is a foul act. I, for one, am embarrassed that this has to be dealt with in a virtual court setting. Doxxing is a real life offence with a real impact on the victim.

The court hereby issues a suppression order, preventing the publication or disclosure of evidence submitted in accordance with Part 8, Section 8 of the Prosecution Act 2025. This suppression order is permanent.

This hearing was presided over by Chief Justice Seas. , Deputy Chief Justice .Martin , and Senior Associate Justice leslieeee.,.,.